Methods and systems for binning defects detected on a specimen

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems for binning defects detected on a specimen are provided. One method includes comparing a test image to reference images. The test image includes an image of one or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to a defect detected on the specimen. The reference images include images of one or more patterned features associated with different regions of interest within a device being formed on the specimen. If the one or more patterned features of the test image match the one or more patterned features of one of the reference images, the method includes assigning the defect to a bin corresponding to the region of interest associated with the reference image.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/300,172 entitled “Methods and Systems for Binning Defects Detected ona Specimen,” filed Dec. 14, 2005, which issued as U.S. Pat. No.7,570,800 on Aug. 4, 2009, which is incorporated by reference as iffully set forth herein.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This invention generally relates to methods and systems for binningdefects detected on a specimen. Certain embodiments relate to assigninga defect to a bin corresponding to a region of interest associated witha reference image if one or more patterned features proximate to thedefect match one or more patterned features in the reference image.

2. Description of the Related Art

The following description and examples are not admitted to be prior artby virtue of their inclusion in this section.

Fabricating semiconductor devices such as logic and memory devicestypically includes processing a specimen such as a semiconductor waferusing a number of semiconductor fabrication processes to form variousfeatures and multiple levels of the semiconductor devices. For example,lithography is a semiconductor fabrication process that typicallyinvolves transferring a pattern to a resist arranged on a semiconductorwafer. Additional examples of semiconductor fabrication processesinclude, but are not limited to, chemical-mechanical polishing, etching,deposition, and ion implantation. Multiple semiconductor devices may befabricated in an arrangement on a semiconductor wafer and then separatedinto individual semiconductor devices.

Semiconductor device design and reticle manufacturing quality areverified by different procedures before the reticle enters asemiconductor fabrication facility to begin production of integratedcircuits. The semiconductor device design is checked by softwaresimulation to verify that all features print correctly after lithographyin manufacturing. Such checking is commonly referred to as “Design RuleChecking.” The output of DRC can produce a potentially large set ofcritical points, sometimes referred to as “hot spots” on the reticlelayout. This set can be used to direct a point-to-point inspector, suchas a review scanning electron microscope (SEM), but this can be highlyinefficient due to the number of critical points. The reticle isinspected at the mask shop for reticle defects and measured to ensurethat the features are within specification. Marginal resolutionenhancing technology (RET) designs not noted by simulation checkstranslate into electrical failures in wafer fabrication, affect yield,and possibly remain unnoticed until wafer fabrication is complete.

Methods have been invented to address the above-described needs. Thesemethods are often referred to as “Process Window Qualification” Methodsor “PWQ” Methods and are described in U.S. Patent ApplicationPublication No, US2004/0091142 to Peterson et al., which is incorporatedby reference as if fully set forth herein. These methods were extendedto include using the background behind the defects found in PWQ to binthe defects. These methods are described in U.S. patent application Ser.No. 11/005,658 filed Dec. 7, 2004 by Wu et al., which is incorporated byreference as if fully set forth herein

Reticle, photomask, and wafer inspection using either optical orelectron beam imaging are important techniques for debuggingsemiconductor manufacturing processes, monitoring process variations,and improving production yield in the semiconductor industry. With theever decreasing scale of modern integrated circuits (ICs) as well as theincreasing complexity of the manufacturing process, inspection becomesmore and more difficult. For example, the number of defects detectedduring each inspection process can be substantially large, and defectscan be caused by many different mechanisms with severities ranging fromdisastrous impacts on product yields to trivial anomalies with no effecton product quality. The capability to separate defects of interest (DOI)from defects that are considered nuisance can mean the differencebetween a successful inspection and a failed attempt with useless data.

Many methodologies and technologies have been developed in attempts toclassify a defect detected during inspection (e.g., performed during asemiconductor manufacturing process) as either a DOI or nuisance. Onetypical approach is to analyze the attributes of the defect such as sizeand magnitude and perform classification based on these attributes(e.g., using deterministic rules). However, there are situations inwhich defects with the same attributes occur at many areas of the deviceand only impact device yield or otherwise indicate serious problems whenthey occur in certain determinable regions of the device. In thesesituations, classification methods based on defect attributes will notbe able to separate DOI in those defined regions of the device fromnuisance in other regions. The size, geometry, and distribution of thesepotential regions for DOI, as well as the accuracy of the defectlocations reported by inspection, make methods such as controlling theinspection recipe by wafer location and filtering by defect locationimpractical as ways to eliminate nuisances from inspection results. Theonly currently available reliable method for separating DOI fromnuisance in these situations is by manually reviewing all of the defectsdetected during the inspection, which is a prohibitively time consumingprocess.

Another approach is to examine the appearance of defects or theappearance of the surrounding area and group the defects using astatistical approach such as nearest neighbor or neural network. Thereare, however, a number of limitations to statistical approaches. Forexample, statistical approaches identify “matches” that are not exact.Even if statistical approaches are supplemented with defect attributes,different defects may be grouped together. In addition, for certainlayers, the DOI are present on particular patterns of background whereasthe nuisance events are located on one or more other patterns.Statistical grouping does not accurately separate such defects. In thecase of PWQ, statistical methods for binning defects based on backgroundhave been shown to have value, but they may produce binning results thatare impure (in the sense that bins contain defects that are different inbackground) and inaccurate (in the sense that bins do not include all ofthe defects from the same background). For instance, the use caserequires matching to precise background patterns, which cannot beperformed using statistical methods.

A hybrid approach has been developed that uses both deterministic andstatistical methods, which is described in U.S. patent application Ser.No. 10/954,968 filed on Sep. 30, 2004 by Huet et al., which isincorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Another defect binning methodology used in PWQ and in standard defectanalysis is to identify defects that repeat spatially on the specimen. A“repeater” is commonly defined as a defect that occurs at one point in areticle. The currently methodology for finding repeaters is to look forcommon (x, y) locations in the defect results. This repeater techniqueonly works in die-to-die defect detection if there are multiple die onthe reticle. The repetition may be at the die level, reticle level (onwafers), or at the level of repeating patterns within the die such asrepeating patterns in memory and test devices. Due to uncertainty in thelocations of the defects, algorithms used to identify repeating defectsrequire a tolerance around the defect locations, If the requiredtolerance is too large, false matches can result. For highly defectiveregions, such as are seen in PWQ and focus exposure matrices, thislocation uncertainty can result in “false matches” in which defects arebinned as repeating when they are located on different backgrounds.False matches can also occur in systems with large defect locationuncertainty. Another limitation of the current algorithms is that byrelying on defect location alone, they cannot identify defects that arelocated on the same background but not at the same position on thewafer.

Accordingly, it would be advantageous to develop methods and systems forbinning defects detected on a specimen that can be used to distinguishbetween DOI and nuisance defects based on the regions of the device inwhich the defects are located. It would also the advantageous to developmethods and systems for precisely identifying repeating defects on aspecimen.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The following description of various embodiments of methods, carriermedia, and systems is not to be construed in any way as limiting thesubject matter of the appended claims.

One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for binningdefects detected on a specimen. The method includes comparing a testimage to reference images. The test image includes an image of one ormore patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to a defectdetected on the specimen. The reference images include images of one ormore patterned features associated with different regions of interestwithin a device being formed on the specimen. If the one or morepatterned features of the test image match the one or more patternedfeatures of one of the reference images, the method includes assigningthe defect to a bin corresponding to the region of interest associatedwith the one reference image.

In one embodiment, the different regions of interest include regions ofthe device in which defects of interest (DOS) may be present. In anotherembodiment, the different regions of interest do not include regions ofthe device in which nuisance defects may be present. As used herein, aregion of the device in which a particular type of defect “may bepresent” is generally defined as a region in which defects of theparticular type are potentially present or can be present. In anadditional embodiment, if the one or more patterned features of the testimage do not match the one or more patterned features of any of thereference images, the method includes identifying the defect as anuisance defect.

As described above, therefore, the method may include positivelyidentifying defects located within regions of interest. In someembodiments, however, the regions of the device in which nuisancedefects may be present (“nuisance regions”) are identified, andreference images for these regions may be compared to a test image asdescribed above. If the one or more patterned features of the test imagematch the one or more patterned features of any of these nuisanceregions, then the method includes identifying the defect as a nuisancedefect. In this manner, the methods described herein can be used topositively identify potential DOI, and defects that do not match any ofthe reference images can be identified as nuisance. Alternatively, themethods described herein can be used to positively identify the nuisancedefects, and defects that do not match any of the reference images canbe identified as potential DOI.

However, in some embodiments, both of these modes can be combined in asingle computer-implemented method, For example, these two differentapproaches (identifying a defect as a nuisance defect if the one or morepatterned features of the test image do not match the one or morepatterned features of any of the reference images and identifying adefect as a nuisance defect if the one or more patterned features of thetest image match the one or more patterned features of a reference imagecorresponding to a nuisance region) can be combined into a single methodto obtain optimal results.

In one such embodiment, the reference images include images of one ormore patterned features associated with regions of the device in whichnuisance defects may be present. If the one or more patterned featuresof the test image match the one or more patterned features of one of thereference images associated with the regions of the device in whichnuisance defects may be present, the method includes identifying thedefect as a nuisance defect. As described above, the reference imagesmay also include images of one or more patterned features associatedwith different regions of interest within a device being formed on thespecimen, In addition, if the one or more patterned features of the testimage match the one or more patterned features of one of the referenceimages, the method includes assigning the defect to a bin correspondingto the region of interest associated with the one reference image.Therefore, in some such embodiments, if the one or more patternedfeatures of the test image do not match the one or more patternedfeatures of any of the reference images (e.g., reference imagesassociated with nuisance defects and reference images associated withdifferent regions of interest), the method includes identifying thedefect as a nuisance defect.

In one embodiment, the test image includes an image of the defect. In adifferent embodiment, the test image is acquired at a location on thespecimen spaced from the defect at which the one or more patternedfeatures are located and at which additional defects are not located.

In some embodiments, the method includes identifying the regions ofinterest containing potentially problematic portions of the design ofthe device based on results of the assigning step. In a furtherembodiment, the method includes identifying potentially problematicprocesses used to fabricate the specimen based on results of theassigning step.

In some embodiments, if the one or more patterned features of the testimage match the one or more patterned features of one of the referenceimages, the method includes determining if the defect is a repeatingdefect (e.g., classifying or confirming the defect as a defect thatrepeats in a pattern, die, or reticle). In another embodiment, themethod includes classifying the defect based on one or more attributesof the defect. In an additional embodiment, the method includesclassifying the defect based on one or more attributes of the defect andone or more attributes of the one or more patterned features formed onthe specimen proximate to the defect.

In one embodiment, the method includes sampling the defects detected onthe specimen for additional processing based on results of the assigningstep. In another embodiment, the method includes locating additionalinstances of the one or more patterned features proximate to the defectin the device. In an additional embodiment, the method includes locatingadditional instances of the one or more patterned features proximate tothe defect on the specimen.

In one embodiment, the method includes acquiring the test image byoptical inspection. In another embodiment, the method includes acquiringthe test image by electron beam inspection. In other embodiments, themethod includes acquiring the test image by electron beam review (e.g.,scanning electron microscopy (SEM) review). In yet another embodiment,the method includes acquiring the test image by an aerial imageprojection technique.

In some embodiments, the method is performed during inspection of thespecimen. In other embodiments, the method is performed using the testimage acquired during inspection of the specimen. In other embodiments,the method is performed during review of the defects (e.g., on a reviewstation that revisits sites found by inspection of the specimen). Inother embodiments, the method includes acquiring the test image byanalyzing design data for the device being formed on the specimen.

In some embodiments, the method may performed using pattern matchingalone. In other embodiments, the method is performed in conjunction withstatistical methods performed on the test image (e.g., to improveperformance of the method). Each of the embodiments of the methoddescribed above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s)described herein.

Another embodiment relates to a different method for binning defectsdetected on a specimen. The method includes comparing a first test imageto a second test image. The first test image includes an image of one ormore patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to a firstdefect detected on the specimen. The second test image includes an imageof one or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to asecond defect detected on the specimen. If the one or more patternedfeatures in the first and second test images match, the method includesassigning the first and second defects to the same bin. Althoughembodiments of this method are described with respect to a first testimage and a second test image corresponding to a first defect and asecond defect, respectively, it is to be understood that the method mayinclude comparing the first test image to more than one other test image(e.g., at least two test images).

In one embodiment, the first and second test images include images ofthe first and second defects, respectively. In a different embodiment,the first and second test images are acquired at locations on thespecimen spaced from the first and second defects, respectively, atwhich the one or more patterned features are located and at whichadditional defects are not located.

In one embodiment, the method includes identifying potentiallyproblematic portions of the design of a device being formed on thespecimen based on results of the assigning step. In another embodiment,the method includes identifying a sample of the defects detected on thespecimen to be reviewed based on results of the assigning step. In afurther embodiment, the method includes identifying potentiallyproblematic processes used to fabricate the specimen based on results ofthe assigning step.

In an additional embodiment, if the one or more patterned features inthe first and second test images match, the method includes determiningif the first and second defects are repeating defects (e.g., classifyingor confirming the defects as defects that repeat in a pattern, die, orreticle). In some embodiments, the method includes classifying the firstand second defects based on one or more attributes of the first andsecond defects, respectively. In a further embodiment, the methodincludes classifying the first and second defects based on one or moreattributes of the first and second defects, respectively, and one ormore attributes of the one or more patterned features proximate to thefirst and second defects, respectively. In some embodiments, the methodincludes creating a subset of the defects based on locations of thedefects within a die formed on the specimen or locations of the defectson the specimen and classifying the subset based on one or moreattributes of the one or more patterned features proximate to thedefects within the subset. In some embodiments, the method includesusing the one or more patterned features proximate to the defects in asimulation of design data for a device being formed on the specimen toclassify the defects.

In one embodiment, the method includes acquiring the first and secondtest images by optical inspection. In a different embodiment, the methodincludes acquiring the first and second images by electron beaminspection. In other embodiments, the method includes acquiring thefirst and second test images by electron beam review (e.g., SEM review).In yet another embodiment, the method includes acquiring the first andsecond test images by an aerial image projection technique.

In some embodiments, the method is performed during inspection of thespecimen. In other embodiments, the method is performed using the firstand second test images acquired during inspection of the specimen. Indifferent embodiments, the method is performed during review of thedefects (e.g., on a review station that revisits sites found byinspection of the specimen). In other embodiments, the method includesacquiring the first and second test images by analyzing design data forthe specimen.

In some embodiments, the method may be performed using pattern matchingalone. In other embodiments, the method is performed in conjunction withstatistical methods performed on the first and second test images (e.g.,to improve performance). Each of the embodiments of the method describedabove may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) describedherein.

An additional embodiment relates to a carrier medium. The carrier mediumincludes program instructions executable on a computer system forperforming a method for binning defects detected on a specimen. Themethod includes comparing a test image to reference images. The testimage includes an image of one or more patterned features formed on thespecimen proximate to a defect detected on the specimen. The referenceimages include images of one or more patterned features associated withdifferent regions of interest within a device being formed on thespecimen. If the one or more patterned features of the test image matchthe one or more patterned features of one of the reference images, themethod includes assigning the defect to a bin corresponding to theregion of interest associated with the one reference image. The carriermedium may be further configured as described herein.

A further embodiment relates to a system configured to bin defectsdetected on a specimen. The system includes an inspection subsystemconfigured to acquire a test image of one or more patterned featuresformed on the specimen proximate to a defect detected on the specimen.The system also includes a computer subsystem and a carrier medium thatincludes program instructions executable on the computer subsystem forcomparing the test image to reference images. The reference imagesinclude images of one or more patterned features associated withdifferent regions of interest within a device being formed on thespecimen. If the one or more patterned features of the test image matchthe one or more patterned features of one of the reference images, theprogram instructions are also executable on the computer subsystem forassigning the defect to a bin corresponding to the region of interestassociated with the one reference image. In one embodiment, theinspection subsystem is also configured to acquire the reference images.Each of the embodiments of the system described above may be furtherconfigured as described herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent uponreading the following detailed description and upon reference to theaccompanying drawings in which:

FIGS. 1-2 are schematic diagrams illustrating various embodiments of acomputer-implemented method for binning defects detected on a specimen;and

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating a cross-sectional view of oneembodiment of a carrier medium and a system configured to bin defectsdetected on a specimen.

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way ofexample in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that the drawings and detaileddescription thereto are not intended to limit the invention to theparticular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is tocover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within thespirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

As used herein, the term “specimen” generally refers to a wafer, aphotomask, or a reticle. However, it is to be understood that themethods, carrier media, and systems described herein may be used forbinning defects detected on any other specimen on which defects incertain areas on the specimen are of interest and defects in other areason the specimen are not of interest.

As used herein, the term “wafer” generally refers to substrates formedof a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material. Examples of such asemiconductor or non-semiconductor material include, but are not limitedto, monocrystalline silicon, gallium arsenide, and indium phosphide.Such substrates may be commonly found and/or processed in semiconductorfabrication facilities.

A wafer may include one or more layers formed upon a substrate. Forexample, such layers may include, but are not limited to, a resist, adielectric material, and a conductive material. Many different types ofsuch layers are known in the art, and the term wafer as used herein isintended to encompass a wafer including all types of such layers.

One or more layers formed on a wafer may be patterned. For example, awafer may include a plurality of dies, each having repeatable patternfeatures. Formation and processing of such layers of material mayultimately result in completed devices. Many different types of devicesmay be formed on a wafer, and the term wafer as used herein is intendedto encompass a wafer on which any type of device known in the art isbeing fabricated.

The terms “reticle” and “photomask” are used interchangeably herein. Areticle generally includes a transparent substrate such as glass,borosilicate glass, and fused silica having a layer of opaque materialformed thereon. The opaque regions may be replaced by regions etchedinto the transparent substrate. Many different types of reticles areknown in the art, and the term reticle as used herein is intended toencompass all types of reticles.

The terms “first” and “second” are used herein to differentiate betweendifferent defects, test images, etc. The terms “first” and “second” arenot used to indicate temporal, spatial, or preferential characteristicsof the defects, test images, etc.

The method embodiments described herein include new methodology forusing pattern matching technology to identify the neighboring context ofa defect. The neighboring context of the defect can then be used toclassify the defects as being located or not being located in one of theregions corresponding to a potential defect of interest (DOI). Inaddition, the neighboring context of a defect and its location withinthe context (i.e., defect location relative to the context) may be usedto assist in the correct classification of the defect. This techniquehas additional applications in areas of Process Window Qualification(PWQ), finding similar defects for tuning sensitivity, and theidentification of repeating defects.

The new methodology may be generally referred to as “context basedbinning” (CBB). The term “context” as used herein refers to one or morepatterned features located proximate to a defect. In embodimentsdescribed herein, the context is defined by one or more patternedfeatures printed on the specimen proximate to a location of a defect.However, the context may also or alternatively be defined by one or morepatterned features in design data proximate to the location of a defectin design data space.

Turning now to the drawings, it is noted that the figures are not drawnto scale. In particular, the scale of some of the elements of thefigures is greatly exaggerated to emphasize characteristics of theelements. It is also noted that the figures are not drawn to the samescale. Elements shown in more than one figure that may be similarlyconfigured have been indicated using the same reference numerals.

FIGS. 1-2 illustrate various embodiments of a computer-implementedmethod for binning defects detected on a specimen (CBB methods). Ingeneral, in the methods described herein, after a defect is detectedduring inspection, an image of the neighboring region of the defect iscompared to reference images or reference “templates” using patternmatching technology. If a positive match is found, then the defect isidentified as being located in the region of the device corresponding tothe reference image that its neighboring region matches and isidentified as a potential DOI or a nuisance defect.

In particular, the method shown in FIG. 1 includes comparing a testimage to reference images. For example, the method may include comparingtest image 10 to reference images 12 and 14. It is noted that the testand reference images illustrated and described herein are not meant todemonstrate any particular type of image that can be used in the methodsdescribed herein. In addition, it is noted that the test and referenceimages illustrated and described herein are provided merely to promoteunderstanding of the methods described herein and are not meant toillustrate any particular type of defect that may be detected on aspecimen or any particular type of patterned features that may beprinted on a specimen or included in a device design. Obviously, thepatterned features and defects illustrated in the test and referenceimages will vary depending on the device design, the types of defectsthat are caused by the process or processes performed on the specimenprior to inspection, and interactions between the device design and theprocess or processes performed on the specimen prior to inspection.

Test image 10 includes an image of one or more patterned features formedon a specimen proximate to a defect detected on the specimen. In oneembodiment, test image 10 includes an image of defect 16 detected on thespecimen and patterned features 18 formed on the specimen proximate todefect 16. In some embodiments, test image 10 may be acquired by acomputer subsystem configured to perform the computer-implementedmethod. For example, the computer subsystem may be configured to acquirethe test image from an inspection subsystem to which the computersubsystem is coupled by a transmission medium (e.g., a data link).Therefore, the computer subsystem and the inspection subsystem may ormay not be included in the same system. Such a computer subsystem andinspection subsystem may be further configured as described herein. Inthis manner, the test image may be acquired in the computer-implementedmethods described herein without performing inspection of the specimen.

In other embodiments, the computer-implemented method may includeinspecting the specimen. In one such embodiment, the method includesacquiring the test image by optical inspection. In a differentembodiment, the method includes acquiring the test image by electronbeam inspection. Optical and electron beam inspection may be performedas described farther herein using a system configured as describedherein. In another embodiment, the computer-implemented method mayinclude reviewing the defects. In one such embodiment, the methodincludes acquiring the test image by electron beam review. Electron beamreview may be performed using any appropriate review process or systemknown in the art. In other embodiments, the method includes acquiringthe test image by an aerial image projection technique. Such embodimentsmay be particularly useful for a specimen such as a reticle. The aerialimage projection technique may be performed using any appropriate aerialimaging process or system known in the art. Examples of suitable methodsand systems for aerial imaging that can be used in the methods andsystems described herein are illustrated in U.S. Patent ApplicationPublication No. US2004/0091142 to Peterson et al., which is incorporatedby reference as if fully set forth herein.

Test image 10 may be a patch image of the specimen. However, test image10 may be any other image of the specimen generated by inspection (e.g.,a swath image or an image of the specimen acquired during inspectionbefore a defect is detected on the specimen) or another imaging process(e.g., review). In addition, test image 10 may have any suitable imageformat known in the art. In other words, the methods described hereinare not limited by the type of images or image data that can be used inthe methods. Preferably, the one or more patterned features formed onthe specimen proximate to the defect are imaged in test image 10 withsufficient resolution such that pattern matching of the one or morepatterned features can be performed as described herein.

As described above, the test image may include an image of the defect.In other words, the test image may be acquired at the location of thedefect on the specimen. In a different embodiment, however, the testimage is acquired at a location on the specimen spaced from the defectat which the one or more patterned features are located and at whichadditional defects are not located. In other words, the test image maynot include an image of the defect, Such an embodiment may beadvantageous in instances such as when the location of the defect on thespecimen is so defective that an image acquired at that location cannotbe used for pattern matching. In such instances, during the detection ofthe defect, a corresponding image from an adjacent die or cell may beacquired. This corresponding image preferably contains the same patternbut not the defect and therefore can be used for pattern matching asdescribed herein with relatively high accuracy. The location at whichthe corresponding image is acquired may be determined in any mannerknown in the art (e.g., based on the design of the device, the layout ofthe dies on the specimen, etc).

In yet another embodiment, the method may include acquiring the testimage by analyzing design data for the device being formed on thespecimen. For instance, the location of the defect with respect to thedesign data may be determined. Examples of methods and systems fordetermining the location of a defect in design data space areillustrated in U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 60/738,290 by Kulkarniet al, filed on Nov. 18, 2005, which is incorporated by reference as iffully set forth herein. Once the location of the defect in design dataspace has been determined, the design data proximate to the location maybe used to simulate one or more patterned features formed on thespecimen proximate to the defect, The simulation may be performed asdescribed further herein. In this manner, the test image may not includean image acquired by inspection, review, etc. Instead, the test imagemay include simulated image data. In other embodiments, the test imagemay include the design data proximate to the location of the defect indesign data space. In other words, the test image may not actuallyinclude image data, and the methods described herein may not beperformed with a rendered image.

Reference images 12 and 14 include images of one or more patternedfeatures associated with different regions of interest within a devicebeing formed on the specimen. In particular, reference image 12 includesan image of patterned features 20 associated with one region of interestwithin a device being formed on the specimen, and reference image 14includes an image of patterned features 22 associated with anotherregion of interest within the device being formed on the specimen.

As shown in FIG. 1, patterned features 20 in reference image 12 aretrench features formed on the specimen. Therefore, reference image 12may be associated with a trench region of interest within a device beingformed on the specimen. In addition, patterned features 22 in referenceimage 14 are contact features formed on the specimen. As such, referenceimage 14 may be associated with a contact region of interest within adevice being formed on the specimen. In one embodiment, the differentregions of interest include regions of the device in which DOI may bepresent. In this manner, the methods described herein are based on theassumption that the regions of interest in which potential DOI may belocated have unique patterns that are discernable in optical or electronbeam images. These patterns are identified and used as the referencetemplates for pattern matching. In addition, the different regions ofinterest may not include regions of the device in which only nuisancedefects may be present.

Although only two reference images are shown in FIG. 1, it is to beunderstood that the test image may be compared to any number ofreference images (i.e., two or more reference images). For instance, thenumber of reference images used in the method shown in FIG. 1 may beequal to the number of regions of interest within the device beingformed on the specimen (e.g., each reference image corresponds to adifferent region of interest such as a gate region, a source/drainregion, a contact region, an interconnect or trench region, etc.).

Reference images 12 and 14 may be acquired in a number of differentmanners. As described above, each reference image may correspond to adifferent region of interest. Therefore, a reference image may beacquired for each different region of interest within the device beingformed on the specimen.

In one embodiment, the reference images may be acquired by imaging aspecimen on which the regions of interest are formed. For instance, thedesign of the device may be used to estimate a location of a region ofinterest on a specimen. An inspection subsystem and/or the specimen maybe positioned such that the inspection subsystem can acquire an image(e.g., a patch image) at the estimated location. To verify that an imagehas been acquired at a location within the region of interest, the imagemay be compared to the design (e.g., a simulated image that illustrateshow the design will be printed on the specimen, which may be generatedusing methods and systems described in U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/226,698 filed Sep. 14, 2005 by Verma et al, which is incorporated byreference as if fully set forth herein). If one or more patternedfeatures appear in both the image and the design for the region ofinterest, then the image may be verified as being acquired in the regionof interest. Additional instances of this pattern may be found in thesimulation data. In addition, the reference images may include images ofthe regions of interest in which no defects are present. For instance,after an image of a region of interest has been acquired by theinspection subsystem, a defect detection algorithm or method may be usedto determine if a defect is present in the image. If a defect is presentin the image, the inspection subsystem may acquire a different image atanother location in the region of interest, and the steps describedabove may be performed until a suitably defect free reference image hasbeen acquired.

In addition, more than one reference image may be acquired for eachregion of interest as described above. Therefore, in some embodiments,the method may include comparing a test image to multiple referenceimages for each region of interest. More than one reference image may beused for the comparison to verify matching of the one or more patternedfeatures in the test and reference images or to increase the accuracy ofthe comparison results.

In another embodiment, the reference images may be acquired bysimulation. For instance, the method may include generating a simulatedimage of each of the regions of interest using the design data as input.The simulated images preferably illustrate how each of the regions ofinterest will be formed on the specimen and will appear in an imageacquired by inspection, Therefore, the simulated images may be similarto the test images that are acquired for the specimen except that thesimulated images will not include images of defects. Generating thesimulated images, therefore, preferably uses one or more models (e.g., alithography model, an etch model, a chemical-mechanical polishing model,etc.) for the processes that will be performed on the specimen prior toinspection. Such simulations may be performed using any suitable method,algorithm, or software known in the art such as PROLITH, which iscommercially available from KLA-Tencor, San Jose, Calif.

The type of reference image that is used for a particular binning methodmay vary depending on, for example, the characteristics of the specimen,the process or processes used to form the specimen, and thecharacteristics of the inspection system used to acquire the testimages. For instance, if the inspection is performed after a number ofprocesses have been performed on the specimen, a reference image that isacquired by imaging a specimen may be more suitable for comparison totest images since the accuracy of the simulated image may decrease asthe number of processes that are simulated increases. In addition, areference image that is acquired by imaging a specimen may be used if amodel for a process performed on the specimen has not been developed oris not available. In another example, if the characteristics of theinspection system and the characteristics of the specimen result in testimages that include defects and patterned features on more than onelevel of the specimen (e.g., due to a relatively transparent uppermostlayer being formed on the specimen), a reference image that is acquiredby imaging a similarly processed specimen may be more similar to thecorresponding test image than a reference image that is acquired bysimulation.

Acquiring the reference images in the embodiments described above may beperformed manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g.,user-assisted). In one embodiment of a manual method for acquiring thereference images, a user may select the pattern of interest from clipscollected in a preliminary inspection. Alternatively, the user mayselect the pattern from a representation of design data such as GDS datathat matches the location of a defect. The user may indicate whether thematching patterns can have the same geometry flipped or rotated, or ifthe match must be in the same orientation as the original. The useridentifies events located within the selected patterns to be falseevents or real events of some level of interest. The user may alsoassign a classification code to the pattern. The methods and systemsdescribed herein may then accept the pattern and use the pattern asdescribed further herein.

Acquiring the reference images as described above may be performed bythe computer-implemented methods described herein or by a differentcomputer-implemented method, Therefore, the methods described herein mayinclude acquiring the reference images by performing one or more of thesteps described above or by acquiring the reference images from results(e.g., stored in a storage medium) produced by a differentcomputer-implemented method. Furthermore, acquiring the reference imagesas described above may be performed once for each level of the designthat will be inspected during the manufacture of the device. However,additional reference images may be acquired periodically after initialset up (e.g., during periodic maintenance or calibration) such thatvariations between the test and reference images over time (e.g., causedby temporal variations in the process or processes used to fabricate thespecimen) do not decrease the accuracy of the method.

Comparing the test image and the reference images includes determiningif the one or more patterned features of the test image match the one ormore patterned features of the reference images. In addition, in someembodiments, comparing the test image and the reference images includesdetermining if all of the patterned features in the test image match allof the patterned features of the reference images. In other embodiments,comparing the test image and the reference images includes determiningif all of the patterned features in the test image match at least someof the patterned features of the reference images. Such an embodimentmay be suitable if the reference images are images of a larger area inthe region of interest than the test image.

In one example, as shown in step 24 of the method shown in FIG. 1,patterned features 18 of test image 10 are compared to patternedfeatures 20 of reference image 12 to determine if patterned features 18of test image 10 match patterned features 20 of reference image 12. Ifthe one or more patterned features of the test image match the one ormore patterned features of the reference image, the method includesassigning the defect to a bin corresponding to the region of interestassociated with the reference image. For example, if patterned features18 of test image 10 match patterned features 20 of reference image 12,the method includes assigning defect 16 to trench bin 26 correspondingto the trench region of interest associated with reference image 12.

Pattern matching technologies have been used in many differentapplications. Some examples of currently available pattern matchingtechniques include summing of the squares of the differences (SSD),normalized cross correlation (NCC), as well as feature extraction andthen feature based matching. Examples of SSD methods are illustrated inU.S. Pat. Nos. 4,579,455 to Levy et al., 6,930,782 to Yi et al., and6,947,587 to Maeda et al, which are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth herein. Examples of NCC methods are illustrated in U.S.Pat. Nos. 5,521,987 to Masaki and 6,865,288 to Shishido et al, which areincorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Examples offeature extraction methods are illustrated in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,104,835to Han, 6,650,779 to Vachtesvanos et al., 6,804,381 to Pan et al., and6,855,381 to Okuda et al., which are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth herein. For techniques that are sensitive to imagebrightness/contract such as SSD, image brightness/contrast correctionschemes have also been developed such as the gray level correction (GLC)method, Examples of methods that can be used for gray level correctionare illustrated in U.S. Patent Application Publication No, 2005/0062963by Yoshida et al., which is incorporated by reference as if fully setforth herein. Such technologies have been used in inspection tools fortasks such as specimen alignment and field/die registration. The methodsdescribed herein, however, are the first applications in which patternmatching technology is used to identify the neighboring context of adefect to thereby aid in the classification of the defect.

If the patterned features of test image 10 match the patterned featuresof reference image 12, additional test images (not shown) may becompared to the reference images as described herein. However, asclearly shown in FIG. 1, the patterned features of test image 10 andreference image 12 do not match. Therefore, the method includescomparing test image 10 to a different reference image.

For example, as shown in step 28 of the method shown in FIG. 1, testimage 10 is compared to reference image 14 to determine if patternedfeatures 18 of test image 10 match patterned features 22 of referenceimage 14. If the patterned features of the test image match thepatterned features of the reference image, the method includes assigningthe defect to a bin corresponding to the region of interest associatedwith reference image 14. For example, if patterned features 18 of testimage 10 match patterned features 22 of reference image 14, the methodincludes assigning defect 16 to contact bin 30 corresponding to thecontact region of interest associated with reference image 14. In thiscase, as shown in FIG. 1, the patterned features of test image 10 andreference image 14 do match. Therefore, defect 16 included in test image10 is assigned to contact bin 30. The method may then include comparingadditional test images to the reference images.

If the patterned features of test image 10 do not match the patternedfeatures of reference images 12 and 14, the method may include comparingtest image 10 to additional reference images (not shown) until a matchis found or the test image has been compared to all of the referenceimages. In some embodiments, the reference images are not associatedwith regions of the device in which only nuisance defects may bepresent. Therefore, if the one or more patterned features of the testimage do not match the one or more patterned features of any of thereference images, the method may include identifying the defect as anuisance defect. In one such embodiment, a defect identified as anuisance defect may be assigned to nuisance bin 32. However, a defectand the test image of the defect identified as a nuisance defect mayalso be discarded or otherwise filtered from other test images.

As described above, therefore, the method may include positivelyidentifying the defects located within regions of interest. In someembodiments, however, the regions of the device in which nuisancedefects may be present (“nuisance regions”) are identified, andreference images for these regions may be compared to a test image asdescribed above. If the one or more patterned features of the test imagematch the one or more patterned features of any of these nuisanceregions, then the method includes identifying the defect as a nuisancedefect. In this manner, the methods described herein can be used topositively identify potential DOI, and defects that do not match any ofthe reference images can be identified as nuisance. Alternatively, themethods described herein can be used to positively identify the nuisancedefects, and defects that do not match any of the reference images canbe identified as potential DOI.

However, in some embodiments, both of these modes can be combined in asingle computer-implemented method. For example, these two differentapproaches (identifying a defect as a nuisance defect if the one or morepatterned features of the test image do not match the one or morepatterned features of any of the reference images and identifying adefect as a nuisance defect if the one or more patterned features of thetest image match the one or more patterned features of a reference imagecorresponding to a nuisance region) can combined into a single method toobtain optimal results.

In one such embodiment, the reference images include images of one ormore patterned features associated with regions of the device in whichnuisance defects may be present. If the one or more patterned featuresof the test image match the one or more patterned features of one of thereference images associated with, the regions of the device in whichnuisance defects may be present, the method includes identifying thedefect as a nuisance defect. In some such embodiments, if the one ormore patterned features of the test image do not match the one or morepatterned features of any of the reference images (e.g., referenceimages associated with regions of interest and reference imagesassociated with regions of the device in which nuisance defects may bepresent), the method includes identifying the defect, as a nuisancedefect.

Although the method is described above with respect to a test image fora defect, it is to be understood that the method may be performed fordifferent test images of different defects to determine if the differentdefects are located within regions of interest in the device. The methodmay be performed for some of the defects detected on a specimen or allof the defects detected on the specimen.

In one embodiment, the method is performed during inspection of thespecimen. In this manner, the reference images described above may beused in-line during inspection to set a defect, attribute or defectclassification. In another embodiment, the method is performed duringreview of the defects. In this manner, the reference images may be usedin-line during review to set a defect attribute or defectclassification. For example, the method may be performed on a reviewstation by revisiting sites found by inspection. This matching may beperformed using only pattern matching.

In another embodiment, the method, may be performed in conjunction withstatistical methods performed on the test image (e.g., to improveperformance). In this manner, statistical methods (possibly incombination with attribute-based rules) are used in conjunction withpattern matching. In an alternative embodiment, the method is performedusing the test image acquired during inspection of the specimen. Forexample, the reference images may be used immediately for comparison toa set of test images collected in an earlier inspection. In suchembodiments, the pattern matching may be performed alone or with otherclassification methodologies. In addition, the method may be performedoff-line if enough inspection data is retained (e.g., available for usein the methods described herein). In another alternative, the referenceimages may be used to identify other instances of the pattern in thedesign data. In this case, pattern matching may be assisted by otherapplications such as design rule checking (DRC) algorithms.

The CBB method embodiments described herein have a number of advantagesover prior art methods for separating DOI and nuisance defects. Forinstance, there are many powerful applications in which the CBBmethodology can be used. In one example, the methodology can be used asa filtering tool to eliminate defects not from any pre-defined regionsof interest from the population of defects detected on the specimen sothat inspection is focused and efficient. In contrast, some previousattempts at filtering DOI and nuisance defects involve inspecting onlyareas on the specimen corresponding to regions of interest. However, thesize and distribution of the regions of interest on the specimen and theaccuracy with which the inspection system can be positioned above theregions of interest limit the usefulness of this method and the accuracyof the defect filtering.

Another attempt to filter DOI and nuisance defects involves changing thedefect detection parameters (e.g., threshold) dynamically (e.g., in realtime) based on positions on the specimen at which the inspection datawas acquired and the regions of interest that are supposed to be formedat the positions on the specimen. Here again, however, the accuracy withwhich the inspection system can determine the positions on the specimenand the accuracy of the locations at which the regions of interest areformed on the specimen limit the usefulness and accuracy of this method.

In the methods described herein, however, all of the defects detected ona specimen can be identified as potential DOI or nuisance regardless ofthe position at which the defects were detected on the specimen and thepositional accuracy of the inspection system since the defects can beclassified as DOI or nuisance based on their neighboring context.Therefore, inspection can be performed across the entire surface of thespecimen without regard to the locations of the regions of interest onthe specimen. In other words, inspection can include acquiringinspection data across regions of interest and regions not of intereston the specimen. In addition, defect detection can be performed with thesame data processing parameters (e.g., threshold) regardless of theposition on the specimen at which the inspection data was acquired.Consequently, the methods described herein greatly simplify theinspection process itself and reduce the required performance capabilityof the inspection system while also increasing the accuracy with whichdefects can be separated into DOI and nuisance.

In another instance, the CBB methodology may be used as a classificationtool to assign defects into different bins based on their neighboringcontext. In contrast, currently available automatic defectclassification (ADC) schemes based on defect attributes and defectfeatures do not address the fact that sometimes where a defect islocated is more important than the characteristics of the defect itself.The CBB methodology described herein fills this important gap in manycases. In particular, one fundamental element of the methods describedherein is that the neighboring context of the defects is treated as animportant integral part of the defect. In other words, this neighboringcontext is treated as if it is just as important as, if not moreimportant than, any other attributes of the defects such as size andmagnitude. The CBB methods described herein, therefore, advantageouslyuse the neighboring context of the defect to identify its location(which region of interest it is located within) and thus assist in thecorrect classification of the defect. In particular, the methodsdescribed herein use pattern matching technology to identify theneighboring context of the defect (i.e., the region of interest of thedevice design in which the defect is located) as well as its locationwithin the context (i.e., its location relative to the context).

Using pattern matching technology also provides the CBB methodologydescribed herein with flexibility and robustness that other attributebased classification schemes do not have even if these other schemesderive attributes not only from the defect but also the neighboringregion of the defect. For instance, in methods that derive attributessuch as feature vectors of the neighboring context of a defect,attributes for patterned features that do not “look alike” may beassigned the same attributes. However, the methods described hereindifferentiate the defects based on what the one or more patternedfeatures proximate to the defect “look like.” Therefore, patternmatching as described herein may be used as a general extension of the“Defects Like Me” application, which is described in U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/005,658 filed Dec. 7, 2004 by Wu et al., whichis incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Suchdifferences between the method embodiments described herein andpreviously used methods may be particularly advantageous since twopatterned features that have the same general shape but are oriented indifferent directions may not be differentiated by currently usedmethods. However, such patterned features can be differentiated by themethods described herein since pattern matching is performed based onhow the patterned features appear in images.

Using pattern matching technology as described herein, therefore,provides the ability to more precisely determine the classification of adefect. In one particular example, the methods described herein are moreaccurate than other currently used background based binning methods inthat the methods described herein find more correct matches than usingfeature vectors derived from the background. For PWQ applications,pattern matching can also be used to find additional instances of weakfeatures in the device design that cannot be found by other methods.

Furthermore, pattern matching as described herein may be used to assistin identifying repeating defects and systematic defects. In addition,pattern matching can be used to avoid misidentification of repeatingdefects. For instance, the methods described herein may be used tosupplement the identification of repeating defects, where “repeating” isdefined as either a repetition in the die or in the reticle or arepetition in the pattern. In one such embodiment, if the one or morepatterned features of the test image match the one or more patternedfeatures of one of the reference images, the method includes determiningif the defect is a repeating defect (e.g., a defect that repeats in apattern, die, or reticle). In this case, candidate repeaters arevalidated or confirmed using pattern matching. In this manner, patternmatching can also extend the capability of the repeater algorithms andmethods to find defects that have the same geometry but are located atdifferent positions on the specimen. These systematic defects areincreasing in importance in determining wafer yield.

Binning of the defects as described above effectively separates thedefects detected on a specimen into groups of defects that are locatedin different regions of interest in the device being formed on thespecimen. Defects that are located in the regions of interest are,therefore, potential DOI. The method may also include determining if thepotential DOI are actually DOI or “real” DOI by classifying the defects.

In some embodiments, the method includes classifying the defect based onone or more attributes of the defect. The attribute(s) of the defectsmay include any defect attribute(s) that can be used for classificationsuch as size, magnitude, shape, orientation, etc. In another embodiment,the method includes classifying the defect based on one or moreattributes of the defect and one or more attributes of the one or morepatterned features formed on the specimen proximate to the defect, Inthis manner, the defects may be classified based not only on theattribute(s) of the defects but also on the attribute(s) of anypatterned features located on the specimen proximate to the defect.

Any method known in the art for classifying defects based on one or moreattributes of the defects possibly in combination with one or moreattributes of patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to thedefects may be used in the methods described herein. Examples of methodsfor classifying defects that may be used in the methods described hereinare illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 6,104,835 to Han, which is incorporatedby reference as if fully set forth herein. Additional examples ofmethods for analyzing defect data are illustrated in U.S. Pat. Nos.5,991,699 to Kulkarni et al., 6,445,199 to Satya et al., and 6,718,526to Eldredge et al., which are incorporated by reference as if fully setforth herein. The methods described herein may include any stepsdescribed in these patents.

In some embodiments, the method includes identifying the regions ofinterest containing potential problematic portions of the design of thedevice based on results of the assigning of the defects into bins. Forexample, the number of defects assigned to bins associated with thedifferent regions of interest may indicate that one region of interestis more prone to systematic defects than another region of interest.Therefore, the results of the binning step may be used to identify whichregions of interest exhibit pattern-dependent defects. In this manner,the results of the binning step may be used to identify the region orregions of interest in the device design that are potentially moreproblematic (e.g., more prone to systematic defects). Each of thesesteps may be performed automatically by the computer-implemented methodsdescribed herein.

In another embodiment, the method includes locating additional instancesof the one or more patterned features proximate to the defect in thedevice. In a further embodiment, the method includes locating additionalinstances of the one or more patterned features proximate to the defecton the specimen. In this manner, the method may include searching in thedevice design or the inspection data for the specimen based on thepatterned feature(s) proximate to a defect to identify additionalinstances of the patterned feature(s). Searching for and identifyingthese additional instances of the patterned feature(s) may be used todetermine if all instances of the patterned feature(s) in the device orprinted on the specimen are proximate to defects or the same type ofdefects. In this manner, multiple instances of the patterned feature(s)may be examined to determine if a defect detected proximate to at leastone instance of the patterned feature(s) is repeatable or systematic(and how repeatable and systematic). In addition, multiple instances ofthe patterned feature(s) may be examined to determine if the patternedfeature(s) are potentially problematic. For example, the number ofinstances of the patterned feature(s) that are located proximate to adefect versus the number of instances of the patterned feature(s) thatare not located proximate to a defect (or the total number of instancesof the patterned feature(s) found) may be evaluated to determine if andhow problematic the patterned feature(s) are. In other words, suchevaluation may be used to quantify how prone the patterned feature(s)are to defects. Each of these steps may be performed automatically bythe computer-implemented methods described herein.

In some embodiments, the method includes sampling the defects detectedon the specimen for additional processing based on results of theassigning step. For instance, the defects may be sampled such that atleast some defects from each of the bins into which defects wereassigned are reviewed. In another instance, the defects may be sampledmore heavily from regions or regions of interest in the device designthat are identified as being potentially more problematic as describedabove. Sampling the defects for review or any other processing known inthe art may be performed automatically by the computer-implementedmethods described herein.

Information about which portions of the device design are potentiallyproblematic may be used to alter the device design. For instance, theinformation produced by the binning methods described herein may be usedto feedback to the design process the portions of the device design thatshould be analyzed to determine if one or more characteristics of thedevice design in these portions can be altered to reduce the number orthe number of types of defects that are formed on additional specimenson which the device is fabricated. In this manner, the device design maybe altered to reduce systematic defects. Each of these steps may beperformed automatically by the computer-implemented methods describedherein.

In another embodiment, the method includes identifying potentiallyproblematic processes used to fabricate the specimen based on results ofthe assigning of the defects into bins. For example, as described above,the number of defects assigned to bins associated with the differentregions of interest may indicate that one region of interest is moreprone to defects than another region of interest. In this manner, theresults of the binning step may be used to identify the region orregions of interest in the device design that are potentially moreproblematic (e.g., more prone to defects). In addition, informationabout which portions of the device design are potentially problematicmay be used to identify one or more processes that may be causing thedefects in the region or regions of interest. For instance, theinformation produced by the binning methods described herein may be usedto determine if one or more parameters of the processes used tofabricate the specimen can be altered to reduce the number or the numberof types of defects that are formed on additional specimens on which thedevice is fabricated. The processes that can be identified aspotentially problematic by the methods described herein include anyprocesses that can be used to fabricate specimens (e.g., lithography,etch, chemical-mechanical polishing, deposition, cleaning, annealing,etc.). The results of the defect binning performed by the methods andsystems described herein may, therefore, be used to alter a parameter ofa process or a process tool using a feedback control technique. Theparameter of the process or the process tool may be alteredautomatically.

Often, the device design and the processes used to fabricate thespecimen “interact” to produce defects on the specimen. In this manner,the method may include both altering the device design and the processesused to fabricate the specimen based on the information produced byassigning defects into bins as described herein to reduce the number ofdefects produced on the specimens due to the interrelated effects ofdesign and process parameters. Each of the embodiments of the methoddescribed above may include any other step(s) described herein.

The method shown in FIG. 2 is different than the method shown in FIG. 1in that in the method shown in FIG. 2, the test image is not compared toreference images. Instead, in the method shown in FIG. 2, two differenttest images are compared to each other. In this manner, all or some ofthe defects detected by inspection can be analyzed and grouped intodifferent categories or bins by performing pattern matching between eachother without having any predefined patterns or reference images.

In particular, the computer-implemented method shown in FIG. 2 includescomparing a first test image to a second test image. Althoughembodiments of this method are described with respect to a first testimage and a second test image corresponding to a first defect and asecond defect, respectively, it is to be understood that the method mayinclude comparing the first test image to more than one other test image(e.g., at least two test images).

The first test image includes an image of one or more patterned featuresformed on the specimen proximate to a first defect detected on thespecimen. In some embodiments, the first test image may also include animage of the first defect. For instance, as shown in FIG. 2, first testimage 34 includes an image of first defect 36 detected on a specimen andpatterned features 38 formed on the specimen proximate to first defect36. The second test image includes an image of one or more patternedfeatures formed on the specimen proximate to a second defect detected onthe specimen. In some embodiments, the second test image includes animage of the second defect. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, second testimage 40 includes an image of second defect 42 detected on a specimenand patterned features 44 formed on the specimen proximate to seconddefect 42.

The first and second test images may be acquired as described above. Forinstance, the first and second test images may be acquired at thelocations of the first and second defects on the specimen, respectively.In this manner, the first and second test images may include images ofthe first and second defects, respectively, In a different embodiment,the first and second test images are acquired at locations on thespecimen spaced from the first and second defects, respectively, atwhich the one or more patterned features are located and at whichadditional defects are not located.

Comparing the first and second test images includes determining if theone or more patterned features of the first and second test imagesmatch. For example, as shown in step 46 of the method shown in FIG. 2,patterned features 38 of first test image 34 are compared to patternedfeatures 44 of second test image 40 to determine if patterned features38 of first test image 34 match patterned features 44 of second testimage 40. If the one or more patterned features of the first and secondimages match, the method includes assigning the first and second defectsto the same bin. For example, if patterned features 38 of first testimage 34 match patterned features 44 of second test image 40, the methodincludes assigning defects 36 and 42 to Bin 1.

Regardless of whether or not the one or more patterned features of thefirst and second test images match, the patterned features of first testimage 34 and additional test images may be compared as described herein.In this manner, the defects in any of the test images that includeimages of one or more patterned features that match the one or morepatterned features of the first test image may be assigned to the samebin as the first defect. However, as clearly shown in FIG. 2, thepatterned features of first test image 34 and second test image 40 donot match. Therefore, first defect 36 and second defect 42 are notassigned to the same bin.

The first test image may be compared to third test image 48 thatincludes an image of patterned features 52 formed on the specimenproximate to a third defect. Third test image 48 may also include animage of third defect 50. As shown in step 54 of the method shown inFIG. 2, first test image 34 is compared to third test image 48 todetermine if patterned features 38 of first test image 34 matchpatterned features 52 of third test image 48. If the patterned featuresof the first and third test images match, the method includes assigningdefects 36 and 50 to the same bin. In this case, as shown in FIG. 2, thepatterned features of first test image 34 and third test image 48 match.Therefore, defects 36 and 50 included in first test image 34 and thirdtest image 48, respectively, are assigned to Bin 2. As described above,regardless of whether or not the one or more patterned features of thefirst and third test images match, the patterned features of first testimage 34 and additional test images may be compared as described herein.

As shown in test images 34 and 48, defects 36 and 50 do not havesubstantially the same attributes. In particular, defects 36 and 50 havedifferent sizes and shapes. However, these defects will be assigned tothe same bin because their background contexts (e.g., patterned features38 and 52) match. Therefore, regardless of the attributes of thedefects, defects located in the same regions of interest as indicated bytheir background context can be assigned to the same bin. After thedefects have been binned by context, they may be further separated into“sub-bins” by classifying the defects based on one or more attributes ofthe defects, which may be performed as described herein. Alternatively,the test images may be compared by considering the defects as part ofthe patterns that are matched when comparing two test images to eachother. In this manner, the defects may be simultaneously separated intodifferent bins by background context and one or more attributes of thedefects. For instance, defects that appear in a contact region ofinterest that have the same attributes can be assigned to one bin, anddefects that appear in the same contact region of interest but that havedifferent attributes can be assigned to a different bin.

If the patterned features of first test image 34 do not match thepatterned features of any other test images, the method may includeassigning the first defect in first test image 34 to its own bin suchthat the first defect may be analyzed as described further herein. Themethod shown in FIG. 2 may be performed for some of the defects detectedon a specimen or all of the defects detected on the specimen.

The method shown in FIG. 2 may include any other step(s) of any othermethod(s) described herein. For instance, in one embodiment, the methodincludes identifying potentially problematic portions of the design of adevice being formed on the specimen based on results of the assigningstep. In another embodiment, the method includes identifying potentiallyproblematic processes used to fabricate the specimen based on results ofthe assigning step. In a further embodiment, the method includesidentifying a sample of the defects detected on the specimen to bereviewed based on results of the assigning step. Each of these steps maybe performed as described further herein.

In one embodiment, if the one or more patterned features in the firstand second test images match, the method includes determining if thefirst and second defects are repeating defects. In some embodiments, themethod includes classifying the first and second defects based on one ormore attributes of the first and second defects, respectively. In afurther embodiment, the method includes classifying the first and seconddefects based on one or more attributes of the first and second defects,respectively, and one or more attributes of the one or more patternedfeatures proximate to the first and second defects, respectively. Insome embodiments, the method includes creating a subset of the defectsbased on locations of the defects within a die formed on the specimen orlocations of the defects on the specimen and classifying the subsetbased on one or more attributes of the one or more patterned featuresproximate to the defects within the subset. In a further embodiment, themethod includes using the one or more patterned features proximate tothe defects in a simulation of design data for a device being formed onthe specimen to classify the defects. Each of these steps may beperformed as described further herein.

In another embodiment, the method is performed during inspection of thespecimen. In an alternative embodiment, the method is performed usingthe first and second test images acquired during inspection of thespecimen. In an additional embodiment, the method is performed duringreview of the defects. In yet another embodiment, the method includesperforming the method in conjunction with statistical methods performedon the first and second test images. Each of these steps may beperformed as described further herein. In addition, each of theembodiments of the method shown in FIG. 2 has all of the advantages ofthe method shown in FIG. 1 described further above.

FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of carrier medium 56. Carrier medium56 includes program instructions 58 executable on a computer system(e.g., computer subsystem 60) for performing a method for binningdefects detected on specimen 62. The method includes comparing a testimage to reference images, which may be performed as described above.The test image includes an image of one or more patterned featuresformed on the specimen proximate to a defect detected on the specimen.The reference images include images of one or more patterned featuresassociated with different regions of interest within a device beingformed on the specimen. In one embodiment, the different regions ofinterest include regions of the device in which DOI may be present. Inanother embodiment, the different regions of interest do not includeregions of the device in which only nuisance defects may be present. Thetest and reference images may be further configured and acquired asdescribed herein.

If the one or more patterned features of the test image match the one ormore patterned features of one of the reference images, the methodincludes assigning the defect to a bin corresponding to the region ofinterest associated with the one reference image, which may be performedas described herein. The method for which the program instructions areexecutable may include any other step(s) described herein.

For example, in one embodiment, if the one or more patterned features ofthe test image do not match the one or more patterned features of any ofthe reference images, the method includes identifying the defect as anuisance defect. In another embodiment, the method includes identifyingthe regions of interest containing potentially problematic portions ofthe design of the device based on results of the assigning step. In afurther embodiment, the method includes identifying potentiallyproblematic processes used to fabricate the specimen based on results ofthe assigning step. Each of these steps may be performed as describedfurther herein.

In an additional embodiment, the method includes classifying the defectbased on one or more attributes of the defect. In another embodiment,the method includes classifying the defect based on one or moreattributes of the defect and one or more attributes of the one or morepatterned features formed on the specimen proximate to the defect. Eachof the steps described above may be performed as described furtherherein. Each of the embodiments of the method described above has all ofthe advantages of the methods described herein.

The program instructions may also or alternatively be configured toperform other embodiments of a method for binning defects detected onspecimen 62 described herein. For instance, in one embodiment, themethod for which the program instructions are executable includescomparing a first test image to a second test image, which may beperformed as described herein. The first test image includes an image ofone or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to afirst defect detected on the specimen. The second test image includes animage of one or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximateto a second defect detected on the specimen. The first and second testimages may be further configured and acquired as described herein. Ifthe one or more patterned features in the first and second test imagesmatch, the method includes assigning the first and second defects to thesame bin. This method for which the program instructions are executablemay include any other step(s) described herein.

For example, in one embodiment, the method includes identifyingpotentially problematic areas of the design of a device being formed onthe specimen based on results of the assigning step. In anotherembodiment, the method includes identifying potentially problematicprocesses used to fabricate the specimen based on results of theassigning step. Each of these steps may be performed as describedfarther herein.

In an additional embodiment, the method includes classifying the firstand second defects based on one or more attributes of the first andsecond defects, respectively. In a further embodiment, the methodincludes classifying the first and second defects based on one or moreattributes of the first and second defects, respectively, and one ormore attributes of the one or more patterned features proximate to thefirst and second defects, respectively. Each of the steps describedabove may be performed as described further herein. Each of theembodiments of the method described above has all of the advantages ofthe methods described herein.

The carrier medium may be a transmission medium such as a wire, cable,or wireless transmission link. The carrier medium may also be a storagemedium such as a read-only memory, a random access memory, a magnetic orimage acquisition disk, or a magnetic tape.

The program instructions may be implemented in any of various ways,including procedure-based techniques, component-based techniques, and/orobject-oriented techniques, among others. For example, the programinstructions may be implemented using Matlab, Visual Basic, ActiveXcontrols, C, C++ objects, C#, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes(“MFC”), or other technologies or methodologies, as desired.

The computer system and computer subsystem 60 may take various forms,including a personal computer system, mainframe computer system,workstation, image computer or any other device known in the art. Ingeneral, the term “computer system” may be broadly defined to encompassany device having one or more processors, which executes instructionsfrom a memory medium.

FIG. 3 also illustrates one embodiment of a system configured to bindefects detected on a specimen. The system shown in FIG. 3 includes aninspection subsystem. It is noted that FIG. 3 is provided herein togenerally illustrate one embodiment of a configuration for an inspectionsubsystem that may be included in the system. Obviously, the systemconfiguration described herein may be altered to optimize theperformance of the system as is normally performed when designing acommercial inspection system. In addition, the systems described hereinmay be implemented using an existing inspection subsystem (e.g., byadding functionality described herein to an existing inspection system).For some such systems, the defect binning methods described herein maybe provided as optional functionality of the system (e.g., in additionto other functionality of the system). Alternatively, the systemdescribed herein may be designed “from scratch” to provide a completelynew system.

The inspection subsystem is configured to acquire a test image of one ormore patterned features (not shown in FIG. 3) formed on specimen 62proximate to a defect (not shown in FIG. 3) detected on the specimen.The inspection subsystem includes light source 64. Light source 64 mayinclude any appropriate light source known in the art. Light generatedby light source 64 is directed to beam splitter 66. Beam splitter 66 isconfigured to direct the light from light source 64 to objective 68,Beam splitter 66 may include any appropriate beam splitter known in theart. Objective 68 is configured to focus the light from beam splitter 66to the specimen. Although objective 68 is shown in FIG. 3 as a singlerefractive optical element, it is to be understood that objective 68 mayinclude one or more refractive optical elements and/or one or morereflective optical elements.

As shown in FIG. 3, the inspection subsystem is configured to illuminatethe specimen by directing the light to the specimen at a substantiallynormal angle of incidence. However, in other embodiments (not shown),the inspection subsystem may be configured to illuminate the specimen bydirecting the light to the specimen at an oblique angle of incidence.

In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, objective 68 is configured to collectlight reflected from the specimen. Light collected by objective 68passes through beam splitter 66 and is directed to detector 70 of theinspection subsystem. Detector 70 is configured to detect lighttransmitted by beam splitter 66. The inspection subsystem may includeone or more optical components (not shown) such as a focusing or imaginglens disposed in the optical path between beam splitter 66 and detector70. Detector 70 is configured to generate images (e.g., test images)responsive to the light reflected from the specimen. Detector 70 may beany appropriate detector known in the art such as a charge coupleddevice (CCD) and a time delay integration (TDI) camera.

The inspection subsystem shown in FIG. 3 is, therefore, configured togenerate images responsive to light specularly reflected from thespecimen. Therefore, the inspection subsystem is configured as a brightfield (BF) imaging based inspection subsystem. However, in otherembodiments, the inspection subsystem may be configured as a dark field(DF) imaging based inspection subsystem, In a further embodiment, theoptical inspection subsystem may be replaced by an electron beaminspection subsystem (not shown). The electron beam inspection subsystemmay be configured to generate the test images described herein. Examplesof commercially available electron beam inspection subsystems that maybe included in the system of FIG. 3 include the electron beam subsystemsthat are included in the eDR5000 system, the eCD-1 system, and the eS25and eS30 systems, which are commercially available from KLA-Tencor.

In some embodiments, the inspection subsystem is also configured toacquire the reference images. As described above, each reference imagemay correspond to a different region of interest. Therefore, a referenceimage may be acquired for each different region of interest within thedevice being formed on the specimen.

In one embodiment, the inspection subsystem may be configured to acquirethe reference images by imaging a specimen on which the regions ofinterest are formed. For instance, the system may include computersubsystem 60, which may be configured to estimate a location of a regionof interest on a specimen based on the design of the device. Thecomputer subsystem may be configured to position the field of view ofthe inspection subsystem at the estimated location. Alternatively, thecomputer subsystem may be configured to provide the estimated locationto the inspection subsystem, which may be configured to position itsfield of view above the estimated location. The inspection subsystem maythen acquire an image at the estimated location. To verify that theimage has been acquired at a location within the region of interest, thecomputer subsystem may be configured to compare the image to the designas described above. If one or more patterned features appear in both theimage and the design for the region of interest, then the computersubsystem may verify the image as being acquired in the region ofinterest. In addition, the reference images may include images of theregions of interest in which no defects are present. For instance, oncethe image has been acquired by the inspection subsystem at the estimatedlocation, the computer subsystem may use a defect detection algorithm ormethod to determine if a defect is present in the image. If a defect ispresent in the image, the inspection subsystem may acquire a differentimage at another location in the region of interest, and the stepsdescribed above may be performed until a suitable reference image hasbeen acquired.

In addition, the inspection subsystem and the computer subsystem may beconfigured to acquire more than one reference image for each region ofinterest as described above. Therefore, in some embodiments, thecomputer subsystem may be configured to compare a test image to multiplereference images for each region of interest.

In another embodiment, the reference images may be acquired bysimulation. For instance, the computer subsystem may be configured togenerate a simulated image of each of the regions of interest using thedesign data as input. The simulated images may be configured asdescribed above. The computer subsystem may also be configured togenerate the simulated images using the design data as input to one ormore models (e.g., a lithography model, an etch model, achemical-mechanical polishing model, etc.) for the processes that willbe performed on the specimen prior to inspection. Such simulations maybe performed using any suitable method or software known in the art suchas PROLITH.

The system may be configured to acquire the reference images in theembodiments described above manually, automatically, orsemi-automatically (e.g., user-assisted). In addition, the system may beconfigured to acquire the reference images by generating the referenceimages as described above or to acquire the reference images from adifferent system. The system described herein may be configured toacquire the reference images from another system via a transmissionmedium coupling the two systems (e.g., a data link) or from a storagemedium in which the reference images are stored by the other system andwhich can be accessed by both systems. Furthermore, the system may beconfigured to acquire the reference images as described above once foreach level of the design that will be inspected during the manufactureof the device. However, the system may be configured to acquireadditional reference images periodically after initial set up (e.g.,during periodic maintenance or calibration) such that variations in thereference images and the test images over time do not decrease theaccuracy of the method.

Detector 70 is coupled to computer subsystem 60. Computer subsystem 60may be coupled to detector 70 such that the computer subsystem canreceive the test images generated by the detector. For example, computersubsystem 60 may be coupled to the detector by a transmission medium(not shown) or an electronic component (not shown) interposed betweenthe detector and the computer subsystem. The transmission medium and theelectronic component may include any suitable such medium and componentknown in the art.

Computer subsystem 60 may be configured to detect defects on thespecimen using the test images or other images acquired by theinspection subsystem. Computer subsystem 60 may be configured to use anysuitable method and/or algorithm known in the art to detect defects onthe specimen using the test images. Computer subsystem 60 may also beconfigured to perform one or more embodiments of the methods describedherein for binning defects detected on specimen 62.

The system shown in FIG. 3 also includes carrier medium 56 and programinstructions 58. The carrier medium and the program instructions may beconfigured as described above. In addition, the carrier medium mayinclude program instructions executable on a computer system of anyother inspection system that can be configured as described herein.

The system may also include stage 72 on which specimen 62 may bedisposed during inspection. Stage 72 may include any suitable mechanicalor robotic assembly known in the art. Scanning of light across thespecimen may be performed in any manner known in the art. The systemshown in FIG. 3 may be further configured as described herein (e.g.,according to any other embodiments described herein).

Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects ofthe invention may be apparent to those skilled in the art in view ofthis description. For example, methods and systems for binning defectsdetected on a specimen are provided. Accordingly, this description is tobe construed as illustrative only and is for the purpose of teachingthose skilled in the art the general manner of carrying out theinvention. It is to be understood that the forms of the invention shownand described herein are to be taken as the presently preferredembodiments. Elements and materials may be substituted for thoseillustrated and described herein, parts and processes may be reversed,and certain features of the invention may be utilized independently, allas would be apparent to one skilled in the art after having the benefitof this description of the invention. Changes may be made in theelements described herein without departing from the spirit and scope ofthe invention as described in the following claims.

1. A computer-implemented method for binning defects detected on aspecimen, comprising: comparing a test image to reference images,wherein the test image comprises an image of one or more patternedfeatures formed on the specimen proximate to a defect detected on thespecimen, and wherein the reference images comprise images of one ormore patterned features associated with different regions of interestwithin a device being formed on the specimen; and if the one or morepatterned features of the test image match the one or more patternedfeatures of one of the reference images, assigning the defect to a bincorresponding to the region of interest associated with the one of thereference images.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the differentregions of interest comprise regions of the device in which defects ofinterest may be present.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the differentregions of interest do not comprise regions of the device in whichnuisance defects may be present.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein ifthe one or more patterned features of the test image do not match theone or more patterned features of any of the reference images, themethod further comprises identifying the defect as a nuisance defect. 5.The method of claim 1, wherein the reference images further compriseimages of one or more patterned features associated with regions of thedevice in which nuisance defects may be present, and wherein if the oneor more patterned features of the test image match the one or morepatterned features of one of the reference images associated with theregions of the device in which nuisance defects may be present, themethod further comprises identifying the defect as a nuisance defect. 6.The method of claim 5, wherein if the one or more patterned features ofthe test image do not match the one or more patterned features of any ofthe reference images, the method further comprises identifying thedefect as a nuisance defect.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the testimage further comprises an image of the defect.
 8. The method of claim1, wherein the test image is acquired at a location on the specimenspaced from the defect at which the one or more patterned features arelocated and at which additional defects are not located.
 9. The methodof claim 1, further comprising identifying the regions of interestcontaining potentially problematic portions of the design of the devicebased on results of said assigning.
 10. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising identifying potentially problematic processes used tofabricate the specimen based on results of said assigning.
 11. Themethod of claim 1, wherein if the one or more patterned features of thetest image match the one or more patterned features of one of thereference images, the method further comprises determining if the defectis a repeating defect.
 12. The method of claim 1, further comprisingclassifying the defect based on one or more attributes of the defect.13. The method of claim 1, further comprising classifying the defectbased on one or more attributes of the defect and one or more attributesof the one or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximateto the defect.
 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising samplingthe defects detected on the specimen for additional processing based onresults of said assigning.
 15. The method of claim 1, further comprisinglocating additional instances of the one or more patterned featuresproximate to the defect in the device.
 16. The method of claim 1,further comprising locating additional instances of the one or morepatterned features proximate to the defect on the specimen.
 17. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising acquiring the test image byoptical inspection.
 18. The method of claim 1, further comprisingacquiring the test image by electron beam inspection.
 19. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising acquiring the test image by electron beamreview.
 20. The method of claim 1, further comprising acquiring the testimage by an aerial image projection technique.
 21. The method of claim1, wherein method is performed during inspection of the specimen. 22.The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed using the testimage acquired during inspection of the specimen.
 23. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the method is performed during review of the defects.24. The method of claim 1, further comprising acquiring the test imageby analyzing design data for the device being formed on the specimen.25. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing the method inconjunction with statistical methods performed on the test image.
 26. Acomputer-implemented method for binning defects detected on a specimen,comprising: comparing a first test image to a second test image, whereinthe first test image comprises an image of one or more patternedfeatures formed on the specimen proximate to a first defect detected onthe specimen, and wherein the second test image comprises an image ofone or more patterned features formed on the specimen proximate to asecond defect detected on the specimen; and if the one or more patternedfeatures in the first and second test images match, assigning the firstand second defects to the same bin.
 27. The method of claim 26, whereinthe first and second test images further comprise images of the firstand second defects, respectively.
 28. The method of claim 26, whereinthe first and second test images are acquired at locations on thespecimen spaced from the first and second defects, respectively, atwhich the one or more patterned features are located and at whichadditional defects are not located.
 29. The method of claim 26, furthercomprising identifying potentially problematic portions of the design ofa device being formed on the specimen based on results of saidassigning.
 30. The method of claim 26, further comprising identifyingpotentially problematic processes used to fabricate the specimen basedon results of said assigning.
 31. The method of claim 26, furthercomprising identifying a sample of the defects detected on the specimento be reviewed based on results of the assigning step.
 32. The method ofclaim 26, wherein if the one or more patterned features in the first andsecond test images match, the method further comprises determining ifthe first and second defects are repeating defects.
 33. The method ofclaim 26, further comprising classifying the first and second defectsbased on one or more attributes of the first and second defects,respectively.
 34. The method of claim 26, further comprising classifyingthe first and second defects based on one or more attributes of thefirst and second defects, respectively, and one or more attributes ofthe one or more patterned features proximate to the first and seconddefects, respectively.
 35. The method of claim 26, further comprisingcreating a subset of the defects based on locations of the defectswithin a die formed on the specimen or locations of the defects on thespecimen and classifying the subset based on one or more attributes ofthe one or more patterned features proximate to the defects within thesubset.
 36. The method of claim 26, further comprising using the one ormore patterned features proximate to the defects in a simulation ofdesign data for a device being formed on the specimen to classify thedefects.
 37. The method of claim 26, further comprising acquiring thefirst and second test images by optical inspection.
 38. The method ofclaim 26, further comprising acquiring the first and second test imagesby electron beam inspection.
 39. The method of claim 26, furthercomprising acquiring the first and second test images by electron beamreview.
 40. The method of claim 26, further comprising acquiring thefirst and second test images by an aerial image projection technique.41. The method of claim 26, wherein the method is performed duringinspection of the specimen.
 42. The method of claim 26, wherein themethod is performed using the first and second test images acquiredduring inspection of the specimen.
 43. The method of claim 26, whereinthe method is performed during review of the defects.
 44. The method ofclaim 26, further comprising acquiring the first and second test imagesby analyzing design data for the specimen.
 45. The method of claim 26,further comprising performing the method in conjunction with statisticalmethods performed on the first and second test images.
 46. A carriermedium, comprising program instructions executable on a computer systemfor performing a method for binning defects detected on a specimen,wherein the method comprises: comparing a test image to referenceimages, wherein the test image comprises an image of one or morepatterned features formed on the specimen proximate to a defect detectedon the specimen, and wherein the reference images comprise images of oneor more patterned features associated with different regions of interestwithin a device being formed on the specimen; and if the one or morepatterned features of the test image match the one or more patternedfeatures of one of the reference images, assigning the defect to a bincorresponding to the region of interest associated with the one of thereference images.
 47. A system configured to bin defects detected on aspecimen, comprising: an inspection subsystem configured to acquire atest image of one or more patterned features formed on the specimenproximate to a defect detected on the specimen; a computer subsystem;and a carrier medium comprising program instructions executable on thecomputer subsystem for: comparing the test image to reference images,wherein the reference images comprise images of one or more patternedfeatures associated with different regions of interest within a devicebeing formed on the specimen; and if the one or more patterned featuresof the test image match the one or more patterned features of one of thereference images, assigning the defect to a bin corresponding to theregion of interest associated with the one of the reference images. 48.The system of claim 47, wherein the inspection subsystem is furtherconfigured to acquire the reference images.